NEPA Clean Energy Analysis: Deliverable 1

Clean Energy Project Landscape

Published

January 21, 2026

Executive Summary

This report aims to create the following set of deliverables:

Data on number of clean energy projects within the dataset: number of projects broken down by technology (e.g., offshore and onshore wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear), lead agency, and location

Figure 1 gives us a sense of the universe of total number of projects in the NEPA database by review process.

Figure 1: Distribution of all projects by review in NEPA database.

Figure 2 reports all clean energy projects in the NEPA database, which totals about 25,000 clean energy projects extracted from the NEPA database.

Figure 2: Distribution of clean projects by review in NEPA database.
Key decisions to make for next steps:
  • Are there any further refinements to the project definition of “Clean Energy” we want to consider?
    • Exclude “Utilities” + non-energy tags
    • Exclude “Military and Defense” nuclear projects?
    • Exclude waste management of nuclear projects?
  • What types of maps do we prefer?

Definitions: What Qualifies as Clean Energy?

Table 1 enumerates the CAFT-defined 14 clean energy and 5 fossil fuel categories used to identify clean vs fossil fuel energy projects in the NEPA database. While projects often have multiple tags, “clean energy” is identified as having at least one of the 14 tags AND no fossil fuel tags.

Table 1: Project type tags used to classify clean vs. fossil energy projects
Clean Energy Tags Fossil Energy Tags
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Conventional Energy Production - Coal
Conventional Energy Production - Nuclear Conventional Energy Production - Land-based Oil & Gas
Conventional Energy Production - Other Conventional Energy Production - Offshore Oil and Gas
Electricity Transmission Conventional Energy Production - Rural Energy
Nuclear Technology Pipelines
Renewable Energy Production*1
Utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications)
1 Includes Biomass, Energy Storage, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic, Hydropower, Solar, Wind (Offshore & Onshore), and Other

About 10% of projects have only clean energy tags, but most (about 90%) have at least 1 clean energy tag plus some other combination of tags.

Further Refining

After reviewing a table of all co-occurring project types, three other projects combinations are currently under consideration to be excluded from the “clean energy” category.

  • Utilities + non-energy: About 1,623 projects tagged ONLY as Utilities AND with 1 or more of the following non-energy tags (e.g., broadband, waste management, land development) were excluded, since these likely reflect utility-adjacent infrastructure rather than energy generation.

  • Military and Defense + Nuclear: There are 481 projects tagged as “Nuclear Energy” and “Military and Defense.” A full table can be viewed here. The majority of these projects are led by the Department of Energy rather than the Department of Defense—an unexpected pattern that warrants further consideration. Should these be excluded or further analyzed in some way?

  • Nuclear + Waste Management : Approximately, 4,000 projects combine “Nuclear” (“Nuclear Technology” and “Conventional Energy Production - Nuclear”) and “Waste management” tags. A full table can be viewed here. Many of these projects appear to involve decommissioning or site cleanup rather than energy production. Are these projects we wish to classify as “clean energy” since it looks more like management rather than power generation?


Technology Distribution

The first deliverable examines how clean energy projects breakdown by technology.

Figure 3: Distribution of clean energy projects by technology type. Projects may have multiple technology tags.

A second interesting analysis is to view how the technologies break down by review process.

Figure 4: Distribution of clean energy projects by technology type and review status. Projects may have multiple technology tags.
Key Findings: Technology

Utilities, Electricity Transmission, and Nuclear Technology dominate the clean energy NEPA landscape. Utility and Electricity Transmission projects comprise the largest share, reflecting the infrastructure build out required to connect renewable generation to load centers. The prominence of nuclear and solar projects are interesting. When looking at how clean energy technologies breakdown by review process, most are granted “Categorical Exclusion (CE)” status, with Hydropower, nuclear, and wind producing projects to be notable exceptions.


Lead Agency

This next deliverable examines project counts by lead agency. In this analysis, agency has been aggregated up to department for parsimony, since agency was less informative. Table 2 reports counts by agency and review process with Figure 5 visualizing counts by agency and Figure 6 visualizing counts by agency and review process.

Table 2: Clean energy projects by lead federal department and NEPA process type
Department Categorical Exclusion Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Total
Department of Energy 20,136 475 344 20,955
Department of the Interior 3,230 213 244 3,687
Department of Agriculture 43 11 41 95
Other Independent Agencies 0 1 94 95
Department of Defense 7 2 28 37
Major Independent Agencies 0 3 30 33
General Services Administration 5 0 7 12
Department of Homeland Security 5 1 4 10
Department of Transportation 1 1 7 9
Department of Health and Human Services 0 1 3 4
Department of Commerce 3 0 0 3
Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 1 1 3
Department of State 1 0 1 2
Department of Veterans Affairs 0 0 1 1
Department of the Treasury 0 0 1 1
International Assistance Programs 1 0 0 1
Legislative Branch 1 0 0 1
Total 23,434 709 806 24,949

Figure 5: Clean energy projects by lead department

Figure 6: NEPA process type composition by lead department
Key Finding: Agency

Department of Energy (DOE) dominates clean energy NEPA reviews (81% of projects), followed by Interior (17%). Notably, DOE processes the vast majority through Categorical Exclusions (CE) (96%), while Interior shows more variation across process types. This concentration suggests DOE’s loan programs and grid modernization initiatives drive most federal clean energy review activity.Most other agencies have a substantial share of projects requiring Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Enviornmental Assessement (EA).


Geographic Distribution

Where are clean energy projects located?

State-Level Distribution

Table 3: Top 15 states by clean energy project count
State Categorical Exclusion Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Assessment Total
South Carolina 4,143 48 23 4,214
Washington 2,165 96 62 2,323
California 1,616 186 95 1,897
Idaho 1,666 92 59 1,817
Oregon 1,320 69 31 1,420
Colorado 1,295 44 46 1,385
Nevada 955 112 27 1,094
Arizona 929 70 93 1,092
Wyoming 819 47 11 877
New Mexico 657 60 39 756
Texas 674 27 22 723
Utah 617 46 9 672
New York 591 27 12 630
Illinois 543 10 20 573
Pennsylvania 536 11 6 553
Montana 386 43 6 435

Figure 7: Clean energy projects by state. Alaska and Hawaii repositioned for display.

County-Level Distribution

Figure 8: Clean energy projects by county. Note: County data available for approximately 47% of projects.

Process Type by Location

Figure 9: Clean energy project locations by NEPA process type. Points placed at county centroids; size indicates project count.
Key Finding: Geography

Clean energy projects concentrate in the Western states and Southeast nuclear corridor. South Carolina leads (driven by Savannah River Site activity), followed by Washington, California, and Idaho. The county-level map reveals clustering around major federal facilities and high-resource renewable areas (desert Southwest for solar, Great Plains for wind).


Report generated 2026-01-21 | NEPA Clean Energy Analysis